Funny, I didn't realize the appeal was decided already. Either that or the whole federal appeals court system joined the macrumors community, created a single profile, and ruled on the issue! Awesome!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Found Guilty of Conspiring to Fix Prices in E-Book Trial [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Funny, I didn't realize the appeal was decided already. Either that or the whole federal appeals court system joined the macrumors community, created a single profile, and ruled on the issue! Awesome!
Incorrect, Apple did actually do something wrong, a somewhat lengthy explanation from an anti-trust lawyer:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/...pple_to_trial_over_ebooks_pricefixing/caatz4t
I think this is the main crux of the DOJ's case though, that the *manner* in which this occurred is collusion and therefore illegal. There's certainly nothing simple about it, either way.
Let's start with "who gets prosecuted for what depends on the discretion of appointed bureaucrats who need to justify their jobs in an era of sequestration/cutbacks."
That's basic. Next is the jumble of federal appellate decisions landing in different places on similar issues.
Next: the fact that many anti-trust issues/standards are decided on a fact by fact basis, which by necessity means the outcome is different depending on the fact-finder/judge, whatever precedent or circuit they are following.
There are almost no areas of law that don't have some arbitrary application issues, and anti-trust is one of the bigger areas that is almost impossible to predict an outcome in, because its application tends to land entirely on one judge's reading of a large series of incredibly complicated facts.
Yes, but what if you get the price you set from the App Store owner (in this case Apple) but then Apple offers it to customers at half that cost? Meaning that, you get your full price and Apple is essentially subsidizing half the cost for customers. Would this be OK?
On the other hand, there are some members who'll defend Apple until their dying breath, completely oblivious to any reasonable proof pointing out the error of their ways. In all my years of visiting this site and enjoying my Apple stuff this is what puzzles me most. This is from the 'Cold War' era, now Apple tops the list of most successful and influential technology firms in the world. But every time something even remotely negative is said about Apple or its products droves of fanbots come on-line and start a shouting match. I find this a bit odd, to say the least. But that's just my humble opinion and I hope opinions are still allowed
As he pointed out, his explanation involved assuming the allegations were correct. Many of his statements were unsupported by evidence.
The DOJ's case is essentially that Apple facilitated the publishers' ability to hold Amazon hostage. Apple did increase competition at some level, and there was adjustment of prices per what the publishers had set (a slight increase for new books). Apple's approach allowed the collusion, even if Apple didn't participate, and so they fall under some technical definition of anti-trust. The only way that anyone can legally seek to take marketshare (apparently) is to lower their prices and lose money on ebooks, which most cannot. Does this "help" the consumer? In a short sighted way yes. The arts and sciences are quickly being driven to a commodity that has little to no profitability. But hey, I get the latest ebook for $1 less!
History has proven that this not matter. Take for example Dunkin Donut in Canada. For years they were leaders in the market share of coffee and donut, under pricing their goods and driving out competition. Then Tim Hortons came in and destroyed Dunkin Donut and now is the new leader in coffee/donut sales.
He wrote that a month ago. The evidence is there. There are emails and testimony from the book publishers. It's the very definition of a slam dunk case.
Temporarily that's fine, but long term it destroys the value on their product.
That's exactly the publishers problem with Amazon and why they tried to undermine them.
Go back a couple hundred posts. A few guys think they are Mother Teresa's second coming. "Basically a non-profit company..."
Ok...
Ok, but that's the nature of the legal system in general owing to the complexities of cases and of itself. Complex != arbitrary.
Again, I do believe that just because so many cases aren't so cut and dried doesn't give someone justification to broadly paint a whole area of law to be "in general" arbitrary. Might I add that being arbitrary means that outcomes are determined randomly.
Yes there may be arbitrary application issues in any area of law. And the fact that it is "almost impossible to predict an outcome in" (which I imagine many legal observers *might* disagree with you here) doesn't mean it's arbitrary.
This is devolving into a semantic argument however, so I should stop here.
Only one poster said that. You seem to be impliying that even Samcraig is an Amazon fanboy, which is far from the truth. His posts vary from defeding Samsung, Amazon, Google and even Apple. I too have to agree with the decision made by the DOJ and it also seems obvious to me that the strategy used by Amazon is not illegal at all, underpricing has always been a strategy used by many other companies.
I suppose all the pro-Amazon folks here will also cheer and celebrate when a Walrmart decides to open shop near their town and drive every small-to-medium mom & pop store out of business.
There is a huge financial and human cost when consumers selfishly desire the absolute cheapest price possible without any concern for how this may impact those who provide these services and goods in the first place.
There is a huge financial and human cost when consumers selfishly desire the absolute cheapest price possible without any concern for how this may impact those who provide these services and goods in the first place.
This part, the basis of the allegations in his opinion, is not supported by any evidence:
In fact, direct quotes contradict this scenario.
I am not arguing that the ruling is incorrect. I'm just saying that this particular explanation is not supported by evidence.
Interesting, if you can provide these quotes. The ones I've seen from Eddy Cue seem to mesh with his narrative perfectly.
----------
I can't speak for everyone but I'm sure most here aren't "pro-Amazon". I've never bought anything from either Amazon or Walmart (neither are that big of a deal here in Canada). The point is, many of us do believe that this case was a correct application of anti-trust law.
Besides that's a strawman anyways, the worst type of argument. I've supported some Walmart development proposals in my city, and opposed others. I certainly don't want "... every small-to-medium mom & pop store out of business."
As I understand it, Apple opened up pricing to the publisher's discretion. This caused publishers to wonder why the other companies weren't doing the same. So yes, there is a correlation between the iBookStore opening and the prices among other publishers changing as well. I know that as long as I purchase a UPC for a book I am writing, I can publish it to the iBookStore for whatever price I want. How is that Apple being greedy?
Exactly. You can be in favor of this judgement and still not like Amazon. You can be in favor of this judgement and still like Apple.
Yeah, they 'only' had witnesses
Also, lol at this video where steve job accidentally spills the beans on basically knowing that amazon's prices were going to rise. He wouldn't know that unless he was involved in an illegal price fixing scheme:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing
Though we clearly disagree on the semantics of "arbitrary" I think you misunderstand my point. The very fact that a different district court judge needs to review a detailed and extremely complex record to come to any decision on anti-trust means, by definition, that each time such a case is reviewed the outcome depends entirely on that judge, and therefore can (and does) change judge by judge. This is a fairly well-known issue in the legal system in general, but specifically impacts antitrust when combined with the area's complexity and the other issues I mentioned previously.
It's also pretty close to the definition of "arbitrary" if the outcome of your case can easily turn on simply the judge you pull.